500 words a day on whatever I want

black people according to white people

Here is the picture of black Americans I get from white Americans, particularly from television and stuff they say (at least in and near New York). Click on the links to see what I think about different parts of the picture:

Excellent!! It’s like new age cliff-notes to ‘Birth of a Nation’, yikes! There is a very recent clip of a supposedly 90 year old ww, calling into C-span, complaining about, whiny, lazy Black Americans, getting free stuff all of the time…. When very young, I found myself in a ‘conversation’ with a young white female, while waiting for a bus;the conversation began innocently enough, ie, hi!

her:”do you know when the bus is coming?”
me: “no”
she: are you in school/college?”
me: yes
she: several of my friends could not get into college because so many blacks get Affirmative Action admission, and now they have to work to pay for one class”
me: huh? oh here comes the bus, bye, lol!

she: several of my friends could not get into college because so many blacks get Affirmative Action admission, and now they have to work to pay for one class”

It would appear you were in a damnable position. Had you told her you were a high-school drop-out and on welfare, she probably would have lectured you on how blacks are always looking for handouts etc. When you answered yes to her question as to attending university, she still has something negative to say as if it is your fault her friends didn’t get into a post-secondary educational faculty. You can’t win for loosing! She probably wanted you to debate so she could show you her racist vitriol. If nothing else she was an idiot. You handled her expertly by not engaging her remarks. Some people, such as this woman, are just plain bizarre!

This post seems accurate. Most whites I know could check off maybe 80 percent of the list, if they’re being honest.

“population: 6% of America.”

Many do think this, that blacks are a very small portion of the American population. But there is also a sizable number that think the complete opposite — that blacks are everywhere, that they’re growing in numbers, that they’re threatening to engulf the U.S. with all their malignancies.

“They live mainly in the inner city and the South.”

Most blacks do live in cities and/or in the South, so at least that’s correct… Of course “inner city” = “ghetto”, and sometimes they might use the word “inner city” if they’re trying to be polite, but some just come right out and say “ghetto”.

This a Southern thing, mostly. I didn’t know what chitlins were either, until I first visited the South. White people in the South eat all those foods just as much, if not more than, the black people. There is an annual “Watermelon Day” that takes place in a mostly white, rural town in the South, I happened to be around for one year. There were watermelon skins everywhere on the streets the day after.

“talents: sports, music, dance”

But of course. Lol. And this wouldn’t be such a terrible thing if they didn’t believe these were the only talents that black people have.

Many do think this, that blacks are a very small portion of the American population. But there is also a sizable number that think the complete opposite — that blacks are everywhere, that they’re growing in numbers, that they’re threatening to engulf the U.S. with all their malignancies.

I think that’s because whites (at least in largely white areas) see themselves as “the norm”, so they notice blacks (or other non-whites, for that matter) so much more than they do whites. So if they walk past a whole bunch of white people and a couple of blacks, they won’t really register the presence of the whites, but then will note the presence of black people, and thus conclude there are more than there actually are.
Given that some whites get nervous or have other negative emotions in the presence of blacks, they will notice them even more.

In my city in Australia, there are suburbs where many Sudanese refugees live, but they would still make up only 5-10% of the population of those suburbs. But because they stand out as being obviously different, people regularly assume they make up about 30-40% of those suburbs.

Note: This is NOT how I see black Americans or Americans in general. But this is how many people in my country see them.

population: 40% of America. (For the reasons Natasha and ES mentioned).language: American English with some of the black slang (that includes terms such as “yo, mothafu.cka” and the like. This slang is considered cool and is adopted by local teenagers here.)religion: Catholic… or Protestant. There is no much of a difference between Western Christians anyway. Except for those blacks who have Muslim names- they are Muslim.holidays: Regular American holidays: Christmas, Thanksgiving day (whatever that is), Independence day, etc.history: Evil Brits and Americans took people from Africa and sold them as slaves. They raped their women and killed their men. They even killed children, because that’s how they (Brits and Americans) are like, they are all evil and violent and kill people for no reason. Look at what they do to us and Middle East today! But in the 60s blacks protested (with Martin Luther King as a leader) and they demanded their rights. Today it’s still bad for them, but many became like the rest of Americans (who support the troops).leaders: Martin Luther King.politics: general American politics (all Americans are the same anyway, and there’s no much difference between Democrats and Republicans). music: rap, r&b, jazz and rocksports: basketballfood: General American food- fast food. That’s the only thing Americans eat and that’s why they’re all fat.drug of choice: crackdrink: unknown (whatever Americans in general like)television: General American TV shows and shows with only black cast.books: General American taste in books, which is non-existent. Americans are uneducated and don’t read.poverty: Many are poor because USA don’t like black peopleclass structure: General class structure, but with many poor people (see above).work ethic: Unknown.morals: General American: they only think about the money.sex: They are oversexed. Black men are well well endowed (only Serbian men are better in that department). Black women are easy and want to have sex all the time. But the again, all American women are oversexed.intelligence: General American (low).education: Most are uneducated, just like the rest of Americans.talents: sports, music, dancestyle: very cool (and many want to copy said style)racism: Whites and blacks hate each other (but it’s not so much of an issue in the US. America don’t have many internal problems).homosexuals: hated (and they should be!)female beauty: Black women have big butts, which is ugly, but there are many extremely hot and attractive black women.family: Unknown.the men: Have a cool style and speak in slang even if they are educated. Great to hang out with. Many women want to have sex with them because they are well endowed.the women: Sexy and exotic or fat.

This touches on Oyan’s point. I’m in college right now, and it’s clear that many white people think all blacks in college receive grants and scholarships for being black or for athletic skill. Even the scholarships they perceive exist could have been academically awarded, it’s that the scholarships were going to go to a black student anyway, so their intelligence doesn’t need to be a factor because the standards must have been lowered anyway. It’s never that black people pay their own way, beat out a group of applicants who were also white for any scholarships, their parents sacrifice like every other parent to send their child to college, or that their parents have actually been excitedly saving money for this day since they were born. Never that! Maybe you can slip black scholarships in there under education. That’s how white people can make sense of successful black people in the world. It was given to them, of course.

If an Asian person succeeds, it is because of the model minority stereotype, not for any personal qualities.

But if a white person succeeds, he did all by himself – because there is no such thing as white privilege or robbing Native Americans of their land or blacks of their labour. No. Whites pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and their own individual merit.

I think that most stereotypes (pertaining to any group) carry a grain of truth otherwise people wouldn’t believe them.

For example most of the NBA is black and even at the gym where I play basketball I’m one of the only white guys.

The problem is when WP take said grain of truth and use it to reduce and define the entire black population. If you assume every black male you meet is good at basketball you will actually be wrong way more often than you are right.

I have been sabotaged in several bl/wh stranger conversations. An associate and I were standing in line (at bank) and several spanish speaking folk walked by, talking in spanish . A wm in front, says to us, “those ‘people’ should learn, to speak english”. My alarm bells went off! Before I could intentionally ignore this person, and get my associate to do likewise, my associate replies, “yes, they really should”. The wm then looks at us, and gives this gem, ” exactly, just like you people learned to speak english!!” haha!! I saw it coming, but she was very shocked, to say the least.

A student in class, (claimed Native American ancestry) who was upset about the passage of Prop 8, and under the belief that blacks were primarily responsible for it’s passage in California, vehemently stated that all blacks, and me in particular, were lucky to have jobs, because of Affirmative Action, and were the last group, who should have supported Prop 8. I ‘calmly’ responded, that Bl Americans had every right, to support the causes they felt were in their best interests, and, that this notion that blacks pushed the passage, was a misguided one. She ranted and raved a bit more, but was adamant on this point. From what I can gather from many conversations with non-blacks is that , Affirmative Action is pure evil.

To be fair, I have an 80+ relative, who says that they never needed nor had to utilize AA, and that blacks who used it, are weak.

“she: several of my friends could not get into college because so many blacks get Affirmative Action admission, and now they have to work to pay for one class”

Ridiculous.

People need to start looking at facts. So here are some:

Fact: Blacks make up 12-13 percent of the entire population of the United States.

Fact: Only one Top 25 college (or Top 50, to extend it even further) in the United States has 12-13 percent of black students in its student body. *winks at abagond*

Fact: Most of these colleges have have around half of this percentage (12-13 percent) of blacks in their student body.

So, given these facts, shouldn’t we be wondering who is taking black students’ places at colleges? If we should be wondering that all, since no one, regardless of academic achievement or other achievements, deserves a spot at the college of their choice? …Except no one will wonder that, since apparently blacks aren’t smart or hardworking enough to make it into these colleges in large numbers (although they are clearly taking spots from deserving whites).

lol!@”Joe Clyde: “For some reason. I like post like these. Air it all out.”

This board is kind of like a virtual version of the ‘Tea Party’; except, ‘we’ are the ‘Coffee Mates’, some of us with cream, some with lots of cream, but some, pure black……
And, with more analytical skillz…

On a side note from a non-US citizen and ex-resident. What always struck me as strange is that (quality) education is more of a private issue in the US. While there might be a handful of good public schools and universities scattered around the country, the majority seem to have a bad reputation for delivering sub par quality. (I must admit I’m not sure if it’s still as bad.)

In contrast on the other hand, for instance the PBS TV channel offers some quality material. At least better than most of the private channels that fill the breaks between pharmaceutical, insurance and local car dealer commercials with utter hair-raising nonsense.

It’s still difficult to get my head around the fact that a lot of people keep paying back their student loans for many years when they are on their first jobs and pay income tax on top of that.

It should be in every country’s – at least those that consider themselves civilised and wealthy – best interest to make sure their people are educated. Good education is not simply an individual potential advantage but it’s an advantage for the country as a whole.

Looking at the trillions of tax $ blown out in senseless wars, only a small fraction of that money would have been enough to provide free quality education for everybody – at least everybody with potential. Without even having to apply affirmative action.

I think that most stereotypes (pertaining to any group) carry a grain of truth otherwise people wouldn’t believe them.

Someone said this to me once and it never sat well with me. I’m still not sure why.

I think people choose to believe stereotypes because it fits a certain agenda or reaffirms their view of the world and, by extension, themselves.

If you look at Abagond’s list most of the characteristics are negative. Why don’t they look for positive characteristics and ascribe them to the whole group? Even when black people do something good, like getting into university, they still find a way to twist it and that makes me think that it is not about truth, however small that grain might be. It stems from a blatant refusal to see others worth and equality.

I don’t mean to be alarmist, but I think the reasons for believing stereotypes are more sinister because they could choose to believe good things, but when it comes to blacks and other minorities, they make the decision not to.

I don’t mean to be alarmist, but I think the reasons for believing stereotypes are more sinister because they could choose to believe good things, but when it comes to blacks and other minorities, they make the decision not to.

Well there is the model minority stereotype, but ultimately it is less about appreciating the accomplishments of members of these groups and more about maintaining social privilege by making failure seem inherent in other groups.

Agabond wrote:“Right, in America only whites are given credit for their success.

If a black person succeeds, it is because of affirmative action, etc.

If an Asian person succeeds, it is because of the model minority stereotype, not for any personal qualities.

But if a white person succeeds, he did all by himself – because there is no such thing as white privilege or robbing Native Americans of their land or blacks of their labour. No. Whites pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and their own individual merit.”

Here is the picture of black Americans I get from white Americans, particularly from television…

So what are these TV shows..? In the majority of TV shows that I watch Black people have professional jobs. House has Omar Epps portraying a doctor.., Grey’s Anatomy generally has two or three Black people portraying doctors…, the talented J. August Richards has portrayed lawyers on several TV shows, Laurence Fishburne is a doctor on CSI…

I know about the Wire… aside from that show what are all the TV shows that portray Blacks in the manner you present..?

“they still find a way to twist it and that makes me think that it is not about truth, however small that grain might be. It stems from a blatant refusal to see others worth and equality.”

Me:

Oh, it’s definitely not about truth that’s for sure. but tbh I feel like it’s more about laziness and as you said it
“reaffirms their view of the world” stereotypes make you feel like you know whats going on. Every group relies on them to a degree. It’s just that because of white hegemony, stereotypes held by whites are infinitely more damaging than any other.

Llama:

“but ultimately it is less about appreciating the accomplishments of members of these groups and more about maintaining social privilege by making failure seem inherent in other groups.”

Me:

I agree that maintaining social privilege and making failure seem inherent is the result 100%, and it’s results that matter. But i’m not so sure that I’m on board with you when you say…

“but I think the reasons for believing stereotypes are more sinister because they could choose to believe good things, but when it comes to blacks and other minorities, they make the decision not to”

Me:

I don’t think there is much of a decision making process going on here. People believe stereotypes because they are pervasive and learned through the media and reaffirmed through selective memory. I think this is mostly subconscious. You see this with internalized racism.

I am with Llama on this one: stereotypes are sinister. We have the history and “decision making process” on some of them.

The welfare queen stereotype, for example, goes back to Ronald Reagan in 1976 who wanted to cut, guess what, welfare. He lied to the press to push his idea of black women milking welfare. It caught on because that picture of blacks served white self-interest – as do most stereotypes they have of blacks. Stereotypes are not lazy half-truths, they are self-serving lies.

White people believe bad things about blacks not because they are true, not because whites are lazy thinkers, not because whites are unwitting innocents, but because stereotypes make whites feel right and good about American society and their own place in it.

One-hour dramas are hardly the whole of television. There are also movies, documentaries, the news, comedies, comedians, social satire, talk shows, music videos and all the rest.

The news is probably the most damaging because whites see it as true, not understanding that the news is made for and by white people who already have certain ideas about blacks in their heads. Having whites in charge of the news is like having creationists in charge of research on evolution.

Next worse is BET, hip hop videos and black stand-up comedians, which whites (and some younger blacks) seem to read as anthropological data even though are more full of stereotypes than almost anything else.

I won’t deny that these are all stereotypes created by white people, but what does it mean for you to compile them all and project that as the complete perception shared by (as you might say) the majority of whites? If I picked the brain of a black supremacist and attributed his beliefs to all black people, would that mean anything? Of course if you challenged me I would attack your credibility by asserting my skin color offers me life experience that you cannot begin to fathom, rendering your logic useless. The recurring theme I am seeing in your blog here seems to be that these are all the ignorant beliefs white people have, this is why they won’t change it, and you reinforce your permanent cross-hairs on white people simply by asserting my racism is more devastating, making yours (and others) irrelevant.

By your criteria, there’s a grain of truth in almost every sentence. If I say, “White people are crazy”, there’s truth in that, because I can find at least two crazy White people. At that level, everything is true so rating which one is “more true” has to be a matter of subjectivity (i.e., bias).

Plus, most people don’t have an advanced enough understanding of statistics to apply them systematically to their own perceptions, though I think you can answer your (implicit) questions by reading the post on confirmation bias (which I helped with :-)).

Natasha,

What university is that? I d*mn sure know it’s not the one I attend; we aren’t even making the 6-6.5% mark by a long shot.

“not because whites are unwitting innocents, but because stereotypes make whites feel right and good about American society and their own place in it.”

There is nothing innocent about it at all. I don’t equate unconscious thought with innocence. My apologies if that’s how my statement came across. I believe a person is responsible for their beliefs even if they were conditioned by outside forces to think a certain way. I think stereotypes are driven by fear of the unknown(which I believe is why they are largely negative) and peoples desire to process that fear in a way that, as you said.. “makes them feel right and good” about the status quo, but this is hardly a conscious decision.

I agree with you that the welfare queen stereotype has a conscious sinister motivation. This fits in with the idea of stereotypes being driven by fear, fearful people are easily manipulated as our leaders know too well. But at the same time there are others that you listed that don’t seem to have any purpose. What sinister purpose does it serve to believe that black people love fried chicken and watermelon? Or that they are good dancers and athletes? Or that asians are good at math?

“Exactly! I tell people this all the time. Blacks are underrepresented in higher education yet many whites are still complaining.”

Those were all easily found facts. It’s also an easily found fact that the black admissions rate at many of the top 50 colleges is essentially the same or even lower than the overall admissions rate. But they don’t care. They just know some black kid from the ‘burbs took Ryan’s spot at Brown.

Jasmin,

“What university is that?”

That would be the Columbia University. NYC helps — there is a larger percentage of blacks in and around the city and everybody wants to live in NYC. Except me; there is no way I’m living in that city if only for four years.

“I d*mn sure know it’s not the one I attend; we aren’t even making the 6-6.5% mark by a long shot.”

My alma mater holds steady at 9-10 percent. They get applause every year for their ability to attract and retain such a large percentage of black students. Lol.

I can feel my IQ being lowered every minute I watch a reality TV show…. that said what little I have seen of reality TV shows tends to make every group (or certainly some individuals within the group..) look horrible. On the Tila Tequila show (can’t remember what it was called.. don’t care…) the wisest person was Black lesbian woman who left the set within the first 15 minutes when it was revealed that Tila Tequila would be trying to find the perfect mate among a group of men and a group of women. I was unfortunately espoused to this because my room mate at the time had a thing Tila Tequila. If I were emperor of the US I would advocate caning for Reality TV producers.

Right, but since whites seem to practice “lowest common denominator” thinking when it comes to blacks and because they generally don’t have much experience with blacks, they believe these shows are representative.

Hmmm… Some TV shows and movies try to play PC and avoid stereotypical black characters, so they create boring, way too perfect characters that still lack realism and spirit. Not sure how to describe it. I am sure you all know what I’m talking about: those perfect (and boring) black people on shows who are smart and successful, but somehow lack personal life, depth of character or any characterization.

What sinister purpose does it serve to believe that black people love fried chicken and watermelon? Or that they are good dancers and athletes? Or that asians are good at math?

Because you’re are essentializing people down to a few characteristics. So when black people get stereotyped as good dancers and athletes, it butresses the idea that they are not an intellectual/academic/rational people. In otherwords, blacks don’t get to be well-rounded. Stereotypical ideas of blackness dictate that blacks are phyiscal and sensual and emotional(ie; see stereotypes about blacks being oversexed, angry, characteristics associated with their physicality and ideas about intellectual inferiority). White folks, however, can be anything they want to be.

Overall, they might seem positive, but they shove people into boxes and oversimplify because it doesn’t recognize their full humanity and complexity. Whites can be many things at once; fully human and complete while blacks and others, in this case, are simpler beings.

I think Abagond addressed this in the Zora Neale Hurton thread about whites assuming that the inner lives of black people are not as deep.

“So when black people get stereotyped as good dancers and athletes, it butresses the idea that they are not an intellectual/academic/rational people.”

Sorry for the double post, but I guess what I’m trying to say is that it’s just a different side of the same coin. So on one hand you have the physical, sensual, emotional black people being excellent dancers, singers, entertainers, athletes because it comes naturally, of course, and then you have the dark side which is angry, violent, oversexed, criminal, unrestrained, uncivilized, etc.

“smart and successful, but somehow lack personal life, depth of character or any characterization”

Yes, I see this sometimes; Bones comes to mind. Did Abagond do a post on this? I feel like I’ve read about it somewhere here.

Speaking of reality shows, is it my imagination or does ANTM always have a black/hispanic girl who is confrontational and likes to get in people’s faces? I know about half of all the contestants come off as unpleasant people, but they aren’t really reinforcing racial stereotypes, but “model stereotypes”.

*disclaimer: I’m not an avid fan of ANTM or Bones; I just switch on the TV and watch whatever’s on.

Way to represent. Such stereotypes help to preserve the Wall of the White Self.

And the notion that only whites are given credit for success is spot on. It’s a key component in the Mighty Whitey ideal. That’s why in their films they can out-ghetto the ghetto, out-samurai the samurai, able to connect with anyone and relate to anything, when in reality they have trouble with basic communication.

So not only do they downgrade other people, they over-hype themselves as well.

My university claims to be 4%, but everyone knows it’s really 2%. They did a study a couple of years ago that showed most Black students who were getting in were over-qualified and were turning them down in favor of more prestigious (meaning better ranked, per U.S. News & World Report) schools with better financial aid. That’s exactly what my cousin did.

White people seriously have trouble communicating on an everyday level with POC. They don’t know to just talk to us. It always has to come back to the “questions” and in worse cases, touching.

There is an Asian girl in LA talking to a white girl right now. As is a Latina in Houston, and a black woman in New York. The white women are each hearing something different, while each of the WoC is hearing the same thing.

I’m thinking of Camille. She does have a personal life, but it seems to revolve around her adopted daughter. She doesn’t seem to indulge in emotion/angst/playfulness as much as Angela and tragic Brennan, and struck me as a little too calm and composed (maybe not a bad thing, looking at ANTM’s black b*tches).

I might be wrong though, since I watch pretty random episodes instead of the whole series and might have missed episodes which centred more on her. I also think part of the problem is that Tamara Taylor’s face isn’t very expressive. I found her character okay, just missing a little something.

“Zora Neale Hurston and how white publishers and producers think people of colour do not have much of an inner life:”

“White people seriously have trouble communicating on an everyday level with POC. They don’t know to just talk to us. It always has to come back to the “questions” and in worse cases, touching”

ok, I suppose that’s true in most cases. In your original context it sounded more general and I was kind of offended. But I must admit, IRL white people aren’t usually comfortable enough around POC to communicate well. I tend to feel a bit more self conscious than when I’m around other whites. But I make an effort to push through and be myself.

“I tend to feel a bit more self conscious than when I’m around other whites.”

Why is that? Perceived cultural differences? I’m trying to understand… my SO says the same; that he feels more self-conscious around non-whites, especially blacks. And I can see he talks less and isn’t as engaged if it’s a group setting. Weird since he’s been with me for years.

Basically, yeah. I’m not really sure myself but it’s definitely my issue. It sounds dumb but part of it is not wanting to be seen as the corny white dude, and at the same time not wanting to be seen as trying to hard not to be. It’s not paralyzing or anything it’s just there. Mostly with other guys more than girls.

If a black person succeeds, it is because of affirmative action, etc.
Right on. I never saw George W Bush referred to as the “Affirmative Action President”, despite him being clearly not of the required standard to do the job. Yet Obama is often seen that way. Michelle Obama is also often referred to as having benefited from affirmative action. This ignores that both the Obamas were spectacularly high achievers in their academic fields.

If an Asian person succeeds, it is because of the model minority stereotype, not for any personal qualities.
In my country, where Asians also perform disproportionally well academically, they are accused of studying TOO hard. Yes, it is somehow seen as unfair for a person to work incredibly hard, or hire a tutor, in order to get good marks.

I think that most stereotypes (pertaining to any group) carry a grain of truth otherwise people wouldn’t believe them.

I agree with this. An element of truth is required to make a stereotype believable. With all the stereotypes Abagond listed, there are of course some people who exemplify those, and they are not too hard to find if you look.

The key thing is, though: to believe that the traits of SOME represent the traits of MOST, usually requires a sort of selective blindness. This is either driven by an agenda (because it suits one’s worldview to see only a particular side of black people), or by subtle deep-seated prejudice which many white people have but are unaware of.

Or, at the very least, to believe those stereotypes requires a degree of ignorance. I can understand some people believing all those things of black people, because they have contact with them, or no realistic frame of reference. People in countries with no black people are obviously dependent on the media to shape their perceptions.

People in countries with no black people are obviously dependent on the media to shape their perceptions.

True. But it’s not that simple. We (people in countries with no black people) shape our views based on media; however, we interpret media using our cultural standards. It makes us see blacks from the white POV, yes, but since we don’t share white American (western) cultural code, our interpretation is different. In some ways we don’t see blacks as bad as white Americans do and we sure don’t realize what things were put in a movie to make black people look bad (using “bad” words (profanities), for example, is a norm in my culture so nobody who uses these words is seen in a bad light).

That’s why I wanted to write a post on this sort of racism. In some ways, it’s similar to the racism known in the US and other Western countries, but in so many ways, it’s different. (Not to mention we are shocked and insulted when we realize blacks and other POC see us* as any other whites and don’t realize we are victims! (!!!!111) who share the same enemy with them. **

*- “us” being non-western whites
**- which is only partly true and depends on non-western cultural group (and those who enslaved them and occupied them).

“The key thing is, though: to believe that the traits of SOME represent the traits of MOST, usually requires a sort of selective blindness.”

agreed. I work as a designer for a company that manufactures an expensive luxury product. I always make an attempt to include POC in our
marketting materials but I often get push back in the form of statements like “use people who look like they can afford our product” AKA not black people. Due to present economic conditions we are now offering a cheaper line. A white co-worker stated “maybe they (meaning blacks) will be able to afford this now” indicating it was ok for me to use black models in our marketting.

The false notion that most black people are poor seems to be taken for granted by almost everyone in my company.

“I always make an attempt to include POC in our
marketting materials but I often get push back in the form of statements like “use people who look like they can afford our product” AKA not black people.”

The “black = poor” stereotype is probably the most pervasive stereotype of blacks in the U.S., in my experience. People just seem to assume that if you’re black, you probably grew up in poverty, or close to it… “Lowest common denominator” thinking.

@ Jasmin, Eurasian Sensation, jas0n, etc:

Whether the stereotypes have an element of truth is not so important, in my view. There is always something that will apply to a certain group of people, however small. The question is why are these stereotypes believed and passed on instead of others? There could easily be neutral or even positive stereotypes that also have a lot of truth in them. Why the negative ones?

This is what I want to know. African-Americans, for example*, are a 400 year old community. Why don’t people choose to see them as strong and resilient? There’s a lot of truth there as well. White americans know the history and yet look at all the characteristics associated with blackness. This is why I do not accept the ignorance/no conscious decision rationalization for holding negative views of others.

Exactly–the truthfulness of the statement has nothing to do with it. Any of the statements above that don’t include “all”, “none”, “most”, etc. are true, because there’s probably at least 2 Black people who fit them. But so is the statement, “Black people are geniuses” (there are at least 2 Black geniuses), and the statement, “Black people are rich (there are at least two rich Black people), etc. So why are people so invested in believing what’s at the top of the page?

I think stereotypes could be a means of rationalizing fear yes, but again, when I look at Abagond’s list, many of these stereotypes bear a resemblance to how white folk thought of blacks during slavery. Many of these ideas were used to justify atrocities (lifelong bondage, rape of black women). That’s why I think they are also about rationalizing privilege. If you can convince people that a margnizalized group is inherently immoral and inferior then they are less worthy of moral consideration. You don’t have to pay attention to any social inequalities or disenfranchisement and you can continue to feel secure about your position.

This happens all the time…not just in the way we talk about blacks and other non black POC, but the poor of all colours, LGBTs, etc. Stereotypes are a way for people to rationalize their own privilege and the disenfranchisement/poor treatment of others.

“That’s why I think they are also about rationalizing privilege. If you can convince people that a margnizalized group is inherently immoral and inferior then they are less worthy of moral consideration. You don’t have to pay attention to any social inequalities or disenfranchisement and you can continue to feel secure about your position.”

well, I agree with all that, but what would motivate one to want to feel secure? what’s the opposite of security? ever felt insecure? kinda like fear innit. I don’t want to over simplify though and perhaps I am.

I’m with Llama on this one. Some stereotypes are about rationalizing privilege. Take for example the sapphire stereotype. Black women getting raped and then being told that they wanted it. It is not about fear, but about justifying the crime.

I agree that they can be used that way. I think they are about rationalizing poor treatment for sure. But again, one does not need to be privileged to hold stereotypes, blacks hold many stereotypes about white people That we don’t take seriously because we have privilege. You could say it is white privilege to not be very
aware of stereotypes against your group. But even though stereotypes held by blacks are laregly impotent to whites they come from exactly the same place and motivation.

The more I see people tossing the word “privilege” around here, the more I question whether they are talking about that, really, or advantage.

Privilege is a right afforded to a given group at the expense of another. Racism in the U.S. today is not so much based on that as on the accumulated prejudices and advantages of an earlier system of privilege.

“In critical race theory, white privilege is a way of conceptualizing racial inequalities that focuses as much on the advantages that white people accrue from society as on the disadvantages that people of color experience.”

I agree that they can be used that way. I think they are about rationalizing poor treatment for sure. But again, one does not need to be privileged to hold stereotypes, blacks hold many stereotypes about white people That we don’t take seriously because we have privilege. You could say it is white privilege to not be very
aware of stereotypes against your group. But even though stereotypes held by blacks are laregly impotent to whites they come from exactly the same place and motivation.

True, one does not need to be privileged to hold stereotypes but privileged people holding stereotypes can cause much more harm than an underprivileged person. By ‘privileged people’ I mean the advantageous in a given situation. There are situations when stereotypes by blacks can be harmful but those situations are far less common.

I disagree with the comment that black stereotypes come from the exact same place and motivation. Some stereotypes may have a common origin such as xenophobia, but since the two races don’t get equal treatment in the society, the origins of at least some of the stereotypes of black and white people are likely to be different. But yes, some elements are common in this kind of stereotypes like ignorance(often choosing to be so) and narrowmindedness.

“It seems to me that obliviousness about white advantage, like obliviousness about male advantage, is kept strongly inculturated in the United States so as to maintain the myth of meritocracy, the myth that democratic choice is equally available to all. Keeping most people unaware that freedom of confident action is there for just a small number of people props up those in power, and serves to keep power in the hands of the same groups that have most of it already.”

I suppose you’re right. My main premise is that stereotyping is a common human characteristic and I feel that the extreme and damaging utilization of stereotypes by whites compared to other groups is basically an effect of circumstance and incentive as opposed to nature.

Oh, well Wikipedia then, Jason. Can’t aruge with that for expertise. [roll eyes]

You realize, of course, that all that definition says is that mainstream critical race theory calls that privilege. Now, seeing as this is pretty much the dogma you hold to, it’s a bit tautological to say “Well, my political position defines it as privilege, so it is,” when I ask you to define WHY your political position uses privilege in this way.

Again, I would suggest that there’s a difference between accumulated historical advantage and privilege, which is a question of rights and favors.

Stereotypes are about both privilege and fear…namely fear of the loss of privilege. If a society maintains its stereotypes about, say, black women and “wanting” rape, then that society can prevent losing the privilege to rape them without consequences.

“privilege – a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor ; especially : such a right or immunity attached specifically to a position or an office”

Right granted AS an advantage. Rights can be advantages, Jason. Not all advantages are rights. Miriam-Webster’s pretty clear here, again, that privileges are rights.

If you’ve got something to say about advantage vs. privilege f**king spit it out already.

Well, privilege presumes rights, which presumes that anyone in a privileged class has said right. An advantage can accrue to members of a class, but it’s not encoded as a right and can thus be taken away or unevenly distributed.

@KingIf there is, then it’s a very fine line.

Not really. A right is a right. The only racially-based rights the U.S. has today – and they are very anemic – are related to affirmative action. The “racial privilege” Jason and folks keeps going on about is definitely based in racism, but is not a privilege. It opnly gets called as such because people have been talking like this for so long that they’ve never really stopped to consider the content of what they’re saying.

Remember…breathe.

Jason’s probably smart enough to do breathe on his own without being reminded Ank. If he isn’t, he’s got bigger problems than his angst over white privilege.

If a society maintains its stereotypes about, say, black women and “wanting” rape, then that society can prevent losing the privilege to rape them without consequences.

Now correct me if I’m wrong here, Ank, but aren’t the vast majority of black women rape victims raped by black men? So where’s the “privilege” here? Sounds more male to me, in any case.

I think one of the reasons that we’re stuck on this “privilege” thing is that most of the language developed to speak about American racism was created when there really were racially-based privileges – as in rights.

Racism has mutated faster than our ideologies can take into account.

But regarding rape and the belief that someone out there has the “privilege” to rape black women without consequences, the Department of Justice document linked here…

…white on black rape in the States is pretty negligible. I can see an argument that the State doesn’t consider the rape of black women to be of much concern and I would definitely bet that less effort is put into chasing the rapists of black women than is put into chasing the rapists of white women. But very, very few rapists of ANY colors spend a single day in jail – less than 6% according to some estimates.

So how this is a mainly “white” privilege is beyond me. White men don’t seem to be raping black women in significant numbers in the States (nor are black men raping white women in very much larger numbers) and women in general aren’t getting much State support against rapists.

I’m thus curious how this situation is construed to be a race-specific right to rape.

@ Thad
So are you saying a privilege has the force of law behind it?
that’s not really how I think of it. I don’t think many of the privileges listed in unpacking the invisible knapsack have anything to do with legislation, yet I believe they are important and very real. I don’t think it matters if you call it privilege or advantage. That may not be intellectually thorough enough for your tastes but it works for my purposes.

Hmmm… Some TV shows and movies try to play PC and avoid stereotypical black characters, so they create boring, way too perfect characters that still lack realism and spirit. Not sure how to describe it. I am sure you all know what I’m talking about: those perfect (and boring) black people on shows who are smart and successful, but somehow lack personal life, depth of character or any characterization.

I believe this character is sometimes called ‘the Cool black guy.’ This character is sometimes played by Samuel L. Jackson. He’s just so ‘cool’ whatever this means. This character is not realistic, but he’s ‘safe’, since white writers, directors don’t know how to make black characters real and multidimensional; they rely on the safe stereotype.

BTW. Omar Epps’ character does have some depth–his brother is in prison, and he also has commitment issues, but he rarely gets to deal with these issues on the show.

Well, that I would agree with. During both slavery and Jim Crow, being white was sure enough being privileged in the strictest sense possible.

The problem with racism now is that it mostly doesn’t work along lines of privilege, if privilege is understood to be rights vouchsafed to a particular group. It’s not hard at all to figure that out. So by hewing to a form of rhetoric established 50 years ago, we just look stupid.

What white people have in many cases are accumulated advantages. In other cases, what we have are prejudices. Both can be classified as racism or manifestations of racism, but neither is particularly a privilege.

@Jason

I’m saying privilege is a question of rights. It could be law or unquestionable custom, but it’s understood that everyone of this class has a right to said thing and that no one outside of said class has a right to it.

It seems to me that you guys in the States are moving much closer to a Brazilian form of racism, one which presumes a certain degree of assimilation and not absolute segregation, one which is based on advantage and prejudice and not on institutionalized privilege. But 150 years of anti-racist rhetoric in the U.S. presumes institutional segregation and differential rights.

I don’t think many of the privileges listed in unpacking the invisible knapsack…

And this is what I mean about dogma and rhetoric. Someone comes up with a buzz phrase and it hangs around to be quoted at the proper time as if citing a meme all of a sudden gave greater understanding into racism’s workings. “Unpacking a knapsack”? Sorry, but it’s a bad – although catchy – metaphor.

The difference between privilege and advantage is quite real and important, Jaosn. One presumes that a social and political solution needs must be found: the other is notoriously adverse to such solutions, at least in the short term.

I noticed this while watching Anaconda the other night. Granted there isn’t much character development in that movie over all, But Ice Cubes character seemed particularly wooden. I notice this a lot in other shows/movies as well. They do a good spoof of the phenomena in the film “Not another teen movie.”

“I’m saying privilege is a question of rights. It could be law or unquestionable custom, but it’s understood that everyone of this class has a right to said thing and that no one outside of said class has a right to it.”

Here’s my definition of white privilege as it occurs in the US:

sh*t white people can generally do that non-whites can not generally do.

I’m going to just call any of that sh*t privilege OK?
here’s another example:

If your white, you can afford to see racism as an opportunity for pretentious navel-gazing and superficial, point-scoring debate.

sh*t white people can generally do that non-whites can not generally do.

OK, that would fall under the rubric of “unquestionable custom”, I guess. But when you say “generally”, you mean “the the vast majority of”.

So what can the vast majority of white people get away with that the vast majority of black people can’t in the States?

If your white, you can afford to see racism as an opportunity for pretentious navel-gazing and superficial, point-scoring debate.

Point scoring? Jason, you seriously think someone’s marking points here? I’m talking about this stuff because I’m interested it. Your mileage obviously varies. apparently you think that talking about racism on the internet somehow gets you brownie points or is a good way to save the world. [roll eyes]

“If your white, you can afford to see racism as an opportunity for pretentious navel-gazing and superficial, point-scoring debate.”

That is an excellent example of white privilege you see right here on this blog.

White commenters can afford to see talking about racism as some kind of game that they try to “win”. And since winning, not true understanding, is all that matters to them, it is all right to sink to cheap tricks to do it – like derailing, moving goalposts, twisting words, wilfully misunderstanding comments and so on. People like that are not serious about understanding racism because if they were they would play it straight.

I’m not testing: I’m simply wondering if there’s any substance behind all this rhetoric you’re tossing out there about privileges, Jason.

As for that link, it doesn’t work, so I can’t say whether I read it or not.

I happen to think “sh*t white people can generally do that non-whites can not generally do” us a fairly OK definition of privilege. But when I think on it in the U.S. context, I can’t think of much which falls into that category.

I suspect you can’t, either, which is one of the reasons you’re avoiding talking about it.

no dude. I’m avoiding it because it’s redundant. I just don’t feel like listing them all out for your benefit.

The link works for me. it’s just a link to peggy mcintosh’s list of white privileges. I happen to stand behind what she says, and everything on the list falls under the category of “sh*t white people can generally do that non-whites can not generally do.” it’s pretty comprehensive so I don’t see why I need to dream up a bunch of new ones for you.

I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time.

If I should need to move, I can be pretty sure of renting or purchasing housing in an area which I can afford and in which I would want to live.

I can be pretty sure that my neighbors in such a location will be neutral or pleasant to me.

I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed.

I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented.

When I am told about our national heritage or about “civilization,” I am shown that people of my color made it what it is.

I can be sure that my children will be given curricular materials that testify to the existence of their race.

If I want to, I can be pretty sure of finding a publisher for this piece on white privilege.

I can go into a music shop and count on finding the music of my race represented, into a supermarket and find the staple foods which fit with my cultural traditions, into a hairdresser’s shop and find someone who can cut my hair.

Whether I use checks, credit cards, or cash, I can count on my skin color not to work against the appearance of financial reliability.

I can arrange to protect my children most of the time from people who might not like them.

I can swear, or dress in secondhand clothes, or not answer letters, without having people attribute these choices to bad morals, the poverty, or the illiteracy of my race.

I can speak in public to a powerful male group without putting my race on trial.

I can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my race.

I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group.

I can remain oblivious of the language and customs of persons of color who constitute the world’s majority without feeling in my culture any penalty for such oblivion.

I can criticize our government and talk about how much i fear its policies and behaviour without being seen as a cultural outsider.

I can be pretty sure that if I ask to talk to “the person in charge,” I will be facing a person of my race.

If a traffic cop pulls me over or if the IRS audits my tax return, I can be sure I haven’t been singled out because of my race.

I can go home from most meetings of organizations I belong to feeling somewhat tied in, rather than isolated, out-of-place, outnumbered, unheard, held at a distance, or feared.

I can take a job with an affirmative action employer without having co-workers on the job suspect that I got it because of my race.

I can choose public accommodation without fearing that people of my race cannot get in or will be mistreated in the places I have chosen.

I can be sure that if I need legal or medical help, my race will not work against me.

If my day, week, or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether it has racial overtones.
I can choose blemish cover or bandages in “flesh” color and have thme more or less match my skin.

Ah. the McIntosh article has finally loaded. So let’s look at what she says:

I have come to see white privilege as an invisible package of unearned assets which I can count on cashing in each day, but about which I was ‘meant’ to remain oblivious.

OK, Peggy, so what are these “assets”, exactly?

Let’s go over them one at a time…

1. I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time.

First of all, this is an “asset”? It presumes that single-ethnic environments are somehow superior than multi-ethnic environments, and that’s certainly not proven. It seems to me that this could only be considered an “asset” if one ipso facto presumed contact with phenotypical or ethnic difference as somehow problematic or unsettling. how Peggy “banks” on this in day-to-day life is something I’d be interested in hearing about.

2. If I should need to move, I can be pretty sure of renting or purchasing housing in an area which I can afford and in which I would want to live.

The “afford” axis here is more important than any other, I reckon, especially in any city that Peggy was liable to live in (and remember: she supposedly banks on this everyday). I really don’t see many middle class black professionals living in blacks-only communities these days unless that’s a choice. Perhaps I’m wrong, so if there’s good information on housing discrimination in today’s black middle class, I’d love to see it. But it seems to me that this is one thing that has changed in the past 22 years since McIntosh wrote this and is liable to change even more in the future.

3. I can be pretty sure that my neighbors in such a location will be neutral or pleasant to me.

What? Only if she lives in a seriously rural or small-town community. I have NEVER lived in a neighborhood where I could be “pretty sure” of that and most city dwellers can say the same thing, independent of race.

4. I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed.

Well, that’s very odd, given that harassment while shopping and etc. is something feminist women complain an awful lot about (and rightly so). But again, this isn’t a race privilege as a class privilege that is modified by racial prejudice. I guarantee that if Peggy were to dress down or evidence any number of lower-class or white trash markers, she’d be harassed. Her white skin gives her no necessary right to avoid harassment that she can “bank on”, unless she adds a slew of other markers to it. The difference is that a black middle-class person may also be harassed because racial prejudice. But I can say for a fact that as a “suspicious looking” (i.e. poor) white guy, I have never been able to “bank on” not being followed or harassed in a store.

5. I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented.

With a last name like “McIntosh”, I suppose that there’s a greater chance that Peggy identifies with the dominant anglo-saxon/scotts-irish paradigm of whiteness present in the American media than I do.

6. When I am told about our national heritage or about “civilization,” I am shown that people of my color made it what it is.

And this is something she “banks on” in her day-to-day life? She seriously takes comfort from national myths and this makes her life some how less trouble free? Frankly, when people tell me crap like this, I argue with them and have been doing so since I was 11, at least. Such statements aren’t something I can bank on: they’re something that has probably been the most common cause for public arguments in my life. This is certainly not something that makes one’s life better in any way, shape or form.

7. I can be sure that my children will be given curricular materials that testify to the existence of their race.

Again, only if you previously identify with that concept of “your race”. I don’t and many white people don’t, for a series of reasons. We thus probably have to spend more time demystifying these sorts of images than black parents who can just tell their kids, “Well, that’s white lies and B.S. for you”. Why someone would “cash in” on this is far beyond me, unless of course they completely bought the dominat paradigm, which McIntosh obviously doesn’t.

8. If I want to, I can be pretty sure of finding a publisher for this piece on white privilege.

Thbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbt. Would that it were so. Academic privilege is going to serve her much better here.

9. I can go into a music shop and count on finding the music of my race represented, into a supermarket and find the staple foods which fit with my cultural traditions, into a hairdresser’s shop and find someone who can cut my hair.

Again, it seems as if Peggy has a very odd and generic view of whiteness. “Staple foods”? “The music of my race”? Really, now? When I was growing up, it was difficult to find any music of any interest AT ALL and that didn’t mean that all of a sudden I got an ethnic hankering for Lawrence Welk. Furthermore, this is a point which is seriously behind the times. I mean, when was the last time anyone here bought tunes in a meat-world music shop? As for “staple foods”, what does Peggy think black Americans eat, exactly? And what about white ethnics? A white Brazilian or Yugoslavian, coming up to the States, isn’t going to find their “staple foods”.

10. Whether I use checks, credit cards, or cash, I can count on my skin color not to work against the appearance of financial reliability.

I’d rather be black and look successful and whip out an AmEx platinum card than be white and look like a bum and try the same thing. But again, this is a “privilege”? As in a right? I was under the impression that the middle class Black American majority used checks and credit cards every day. If this isn’t a right that’s bestowed on whites and not on blacks, how could they successfully do that? Again, prejudice here is being mistaken for institutional rights.

11. I can arrange to protect my children most of the time from people who might not like them.

No you can’t. Seriously. You’re kids’ biggest enemies are the ones they have to confront everyday in school and there isn’t jack that you can do most of the time regarding that. I speak from long and sad experience.

12. I can swear, or dress in secondhand clothes, or not answer letters, without having people attribute these choices to bad morals, the poverty, or the illiteracy of my race.

This is obviously a woman who has no souther or rural accent and no other obvious markers of white trash status.

13. I can speak in public to a powerful male group without putting my race on trial.

I’m unsure exactly what she means by “putting my race on trial”. I THINK she means “having my race referred to or brought up”.

14. I can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my race.

Again, this is more an effect of prejudice than privilege. but again, how does Peggy “cash in” on this in order to make a positive change in her life? How doeas this affect her life chances, exactly? But I would also say that this is, again, not a “whites only” thing. A white immigrant from Russia will also be told she is a “credit to her people” if she does well in a challengin situation in the U.S.

15. I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group.

No, she just takes on that task on her own hook, the humble dear. And again: annoying prejudicial BS, yes. But this affects one’s life chances, how? It becomes a “right”, how? And yet again, whiote immigrants are also asked to speak for their people: I’ve seen it happen to white Latin Americans on many occasions.

16. I can remain oblivious of the language and customs of persons of color who constitute the world’s majority without feeling in my culture any penalty for such oblivion.

Big deal, so can – and do – Black Americans. Americans in general don’t borther to learn other languages or customs. This is an American privilege, if privilege it indeed is.

17. I can criticize our government and talk about how much i fear its policies and behaviour without being seen as a cultural outsider.

Not anymore you can’t, you liberal, socialist, politically correct feminazi!!!! 😀 (What a difference 22 years has made in what’s accepted in American public political discourse….)

18. I can be pretty sure that if I ask to talk to “the person in charge,” I will be facing a person of my race.

Even if all jobs in the U.S. evenly divided without reference to race, in most communities that would still be the case – ESPECIALLY when one takes into account the fact that many so-called latinos are as white as any other white American.

19. If a traffic cop pulls me over or if the IRS audits my tax return, I can be sure I haven’t been singled out because of my race.

Yeah, but again, how does that become something you cash in on? If you’re being stopped by a cop or auditted by the IRS, you’ve got problems, any road. I happen to think that ethnic profiling is, however, one of the new ways racism has evolved. One doesn’t need institutionalized rights and privileges based on race if one can hide behind a perp profile.

It be hard not to be able to do this in 2010, presuming one is white or black in the U.S. But again, this presumes that “my race” is the dominant paradigm being pushed for whiteness. If I don’t accept that for me or my kid, I have problems.

21. I can go home from most meetings of organizations I belong to feeling somewhat tied in, rather than isolated, out-of-place, outnumbered, unheard, held at a distance, or feared.

Wow. I have never had this “tied in” feeling in my life, nor have most of the activists I know, so I don’t know what to say. It seems to me, though, that Peggy is generalizing a bunch of her particulars here.

22. I can take a job with an affirmative action employer without having co-workers on the job suspect that I got it because of my race.

Yep. This one I can definitely see. But then again, as I said above, affirmative action is one of the few places where race-based rights are still formally institutionalized, however anemically.

23. I can choose public accommodation without fearing that people of my race cannot get in or will be mistreated in the places I have chosen.

Now this one I can relate to as well, but again, is it privilege or prejudice? If you’re turned away based on race, you have a legal case. that doesn’t do you much good, however, when you’re up against someone’s individual prejudice. It doesn’t help you, say, when a white waitress spits in your food. The thing is, you unfortunately can’t legislate how people treat you. And agian, it’s hard to see this as a whites only deal, given that Jews have similar problems in the States, as do white Latin Americans.

24. I can be sure that if I need legal or medical help, my race will not work against me.

Oooh, yes. Especially the legal help deal. I fully believe that the American legal system is one of the last great rebdoubts of institutionalized racism, so this one I’ll actually buy.

25. If my day, week, or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether it has racial overtones.

And this allows you to “cash in” how, exactly, Peggy? I have to ask myself whether any given incident involving me has to do with nativism. Having to ask myself that doesn’t improve or diminuish my life chances one iota.

26. I can choose blemish cover or bandages in “flesh” color and have thme more or less match my skin.

Thpppppppppt. now she’s really reaching. I, for one, have never had a bandage match my skin color and why color-coordinated bandages would be something one could bank on is completely beyond me.

So looking at the above, most of the stuff that can legitimately be called “privilege” has to do with cops and the legal system.

Odd, then, that when we talk about it here, these aren’t the examples that trip off people’s tongues, but rather more personal annoyances.

Color-coordinated bandages? C’mon, Jason! This is something you “cash in on” that makes a difference in your life chances, a “right” given to most white people and not most black people? To begin with, if this were even true, you must have very odd skin coloration, because bandages certainly don’t “blend in” on most white people I know.

On that list, I’d say numbers 19, 22 and 24 fall into the realm of “privilege”. The rest of this stuff is either Peggy universalizing her particulars, stuff that various and sundry white groups also have to put up with, stuff that’s now mostly obsolete (I highly doubt that most middle class black people have any more difficulty using their credit cards these days than I do), or crap that may be annoying but makes no difference whatsoever in one’s life chances.

These privileges exist. I don’t think it’s for me to say if they are individually important or not because I don’t have to deal with any of them. What authority do you have to question the impact of something that doesn’t impact upon you? That’s like stepping on someones toes and when they ask you to move you say “c’mon, it’s not that bad, it could be a lot worse right? I think I’ll just stay put unless you can PROVE i’m really hurting you.”

One of the reasons I’m on here this week scrapping with you is because I’m translating a comparative research project into race, gender and sexuality in South Africa, the U.S. and Brazil. These folks are heavily into the deconstruction of identity and privilege and are pushing for a more prossesural understanding of inequality based on social markers.

So it’s very useful for me to be tossing this particular ball at an American who believes in the orthdox version of critical race studies dogma. Dialoguing with these two antagonic positions at one and the same time brings both into tighter focus for me.

Just thought you should know why I’m investing time in this. It most certainly isn’t to gain points or what have you. It is quite simply a dialogue, in the strictest sense of the word.

These privileges exist. I don’t think it’s for me to say if they are individually important or not because I don’t have to deal with any of them.

First of all, most of them are not rights. Secondly, many of them – close to half – are not at all specific to black people or exclusive to white people. Finally, I have all the authority I need in the world to question whether something is really of social impact. I can’t say how any individual is going to react to a certain thing, but socially…?

I think it speaks volumes of the changes in the U.S. discourse on race that one can now, with a straight face, postulate that color-coordinated bandages are in the same league of “privileges” as being denied housing, service or simple, basic justice.

But you example also speaks volumes as to why this “privilege” view of racism has major problems with it. Unlike when I step on your toes, Jason, neither I myself personally, nor white people collectively, are responsible for the color scheme of Johnson and Johnson’s bandages. you’ll have to take that one up with the corporation itself.

And finally, following your own definition of privilege – “sh** most white people can do and most blacks cant” – the majority of stuff on that list falls right off. Most white people can’t get color-matching bandages, nor guarantee that their children will be safe from those who dislike them, nor criticize their government (at least from a left perspective) without being called lunatics and evil.

Sorry.

This list is a great example of my point: racism is mutating faster than our analysis can keep up with it. When Peggy wrote that list, South Africa was still under apartheid, Brazil had just had its first free election in twenty years and Richard Pryor was playing the idea of a black president of the U.s. for laughs.

“But you example also speaks volumes as to why this “privilege” view of racism has major problems with it. Unlike when I step on your toes, Jason, neither I myself personally, nor white people collectively, are responsible for the color scheme of Johnson and Johnson’s bandages. you’ll have to take that one up with the corporation itself.”

aha! And here we have your most troubling fallacy. The major epic fail of whites in general! As I see it.

It’s not about finger pointing. nobody wants to say that you and I are responsible. Nobody is yelling at us for having bandaids that match our fingers. It’s about listening and trying to empathize. Changing your perspective for ONE SECOND. Do you think it’s a coincidence that you see things the way you do, and you just happen to be white? Come on man. How could you pretend that you are coming at this in an unbiased way? Everything you say on here is informed by your white perspective.

Hey, don’t blame the messenger. McIntosh wanted to come up with 25 examples of what she considers to be a serious problem and SHE slapped that little bit of ridiculous crap in there, not me. But it’s indicative of several problems with the list in that it presumes something’s an “advantage” when it is not.

That’s nice that I can make myself useful to you. I’m sure the POC who read and comment here are also grateful.

Most of them follow the critical race theory dogmas of the 1980s and ’90s, too, so it’s useful TO ME. I’m not pretending to be useful to the world at large by writing on a blog, nor am I looking for anyone’s gratitude, Jason. If you are, you’re in no place to criticize me for being self-important.

“critical race studies”? ugh. gross. what a flippant and unfortunately white approach to racial inequality. maybe I shouldn’t be talking with academics about racism anyway.

I’m sure that Derrick Bell and Kimberlé Crenshaw would be tickled melanin-deficient to hear that their analysis of race is now considered “an unfortunately white approach to racial equality” by the younger generation who still (apparently unwittingly) parrot its precepts.

The fact is that asking what something called “Black America” thinks, feels, or wants makes as much sense as commisioning a new Gallup poll of the Ottoman Empire. Black America, as we knew it, is history.”

Apparently, however, this wide diversity of people all still has the same exact relationship to privilege, however. [roll eyes]

“The fact is that asking what something called “Black America” thinks, feels, or wants makes as much sense as commisioning a new Gallup poll of the Ottoman Empire. Black America, as we knew it, is history”

Perhaps you should read this more closely.

I don’t know the context but it that quote seems to have some truth to it. If you think I’m interested in “understanding black America” as you clearly believe, your wrong.

Black America as we knew it may no longer exist. but black Americans do. And the fact that they don’t all think and feel the same way about everything is all the more reason to listen to individuals, and not approach racism as a theory that you can just get and move on.

“I’m sure that Derrick Bell and Kimberlé Crenshaw would be tickled melanin-deficient to hear that their analysis of race is now considered “an unfortunately white approach to racial equality” by the younger generation who still (apparently unwittingly) parrot its precepts.”

I was referring to your approach and interpretation, not the substance of CRT. But that wasn’t clear in my original comment.

3. I can be pretty sure that my neighbors in such a location will be neutral or pleasant to me.

What? Only if she lives in a seriously rural or small-town community. I have NEVER lived in a neighborhood where I could be “pretty sure” of that and most city dwellers can say the same thing, independent of race.

You can at least be sure that people will not bother you because of your race(assuming you’re white)

4. I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed.

Well, that’s very odd, given that harassment while shopping and etc. is something feminist women complain an awful lot about (and rightly so). But again, this isn’t a race privilege as a class privilege that is modified by racial prejudice…. followed or harassed in a store.

10. Whether I use checks, credit cards, or cash, I can count on my skin color not to work against the appearance of financial reliability.

I’d rather be black and look successful and whip out an AmEx platinum card than be white and look like a bum and try the same thing. But again, this is a “privilege”? As in a right? I was under the impression that the middle class Black American majority used checks and credit cards every day. If this isn’t a right that’s bestowed on whites and not on blacks, how could they successfully do that? Again, prejudice here is being mistaken for institutional rights.

You’re at best misinterpreting her point. To be followed in a store is actually a consequence of the prejudiced mentality that all black people are poor and (hence?)shoplifters. “Again, prejudice here is being mistaken for institutional rights.” Where has anyone said that POC are constitutionally banned from using cheques and credit cards? And from where did you get ‘institutional rights’ into it?

11. I can arrange to protect my children most of the time from people who might not like them.

No you can’t. Seriously. You’re kids’ biggest enemies are the ones they have to confront everyday in school and there isn’t jack that you can do most of the time regarding that. I speak from long and sad experience.

12. I can swear, or dress in secondhand clothes, or not answer letters, without having people attribute these choices to bad morals, the poverty, or the illiteracy of my race.

This is obviously a woman who has no souther or rural accent and no other obvious markers of white trash status.

The term ‘white trash’ sounds to me like ‘white yet trash’ which assumes that generally whites are not like that. The term does not assign anything negative to the entire white race. On the other hand when a black man possesses the qualities that makes a white person a ‘white trash’ it is not a surprise because those qualities are seen as his racial traits.

13. I can speak in public to a powerful male group without putting my race on trial.

I’m unsure exactly what she means by “putting my race on trial”. I THINK she means “having my race referred to or brought up”.

I too think that’s what she means, except that I think she also means “whatever I say would be viewed in context of my race”.

For the points about prejudice vs privilege, I think jas0nburns has covered it pretty well. Due to the white prejudice in a country where majority is white, POC are often treated unfairly. In order to avoid that unfair treatment POC have to be extra-careful which is again unfair. So POC lack the privilege to be at ease in places where WP of the same financial status can always be at ease. I think we’re just arguing semantics here ignoring the real issue.

@JasonIt’s about listening and trying to empathize. Changing your perspective for ONE SECOND. Do you think it’s a coincidence that you see things the way you do, and you just happen to be white? Come on man. How could you pretend that you are coming at this in an unbiased way? Everything you say on here is informed by your white perspective.

Jason, everything I say is informed by a series of perspectives. What I disagree with is your belief that there’s a singular and homogenous “white” perspective and that this perspective apparently drowns out all the others inside me to the point where it becomes determinative.

And, frankly, I’m not interested in “emphasizing” with people based on generic characteristics. I don’t think, for example, that “Moi’s” rather elitist perception of the world is the same as, say, that of an african-Brazilian student I’m mentoring out in Macaé, for all that both of them are “black”. They don’t share some ineffable racial “perspective” on life and I don’t see what one could possibly gain in terms of “empathy” or “understanding” by preusming they do – unless, of course, one really BELEIVED that all black people are essentially the same on some level, which seems to be where you’re constantly headed, whether you want toa dmit that fact or not.

I don’t know the context but it that quote [“The fact is that asking what something called ‘Black America’ thinks, feels, or wants makes as much sense as commisioning a new Gallup poll of the Ottoman Empire. Black America, as we knew it, is history.”] seems to have some truth to it.

Does it really?

Well what if I were to tell you now that I lied, that Eugene Robinson really didn’t make that statement but that I invented it, whole cloth or even swiped it from the Stormfront board?

Would that change your perspective on whether or not it’s “true”, Jason?

“I don’t think, for example, that “Moi’s” rather elitist perception of the world is the same as, say, that of an african-Brazilian student I’m mentoring out in Macaé, for all that both of them are “black”. ”

right. exactly. there is no singular truth or answer. why would they have to be the same? why should their experiences need to be similar in order to be valid and worth listening to.

“They don’t share some ineffable racial “perspective” on life and I don’t see what one could possibly gain in terms of “empathy” or “understanding” by preusming they do.”

who said you should presume such a thing? not me. I don’t have an interest in stating that blacks have a homogeneous experience. nothing I have said hinges on that in any way. I am not searching for an essential truth that applies to all POC and I do not think one exists, nor should such a thing be required in order to empathize.

“And, frankly, I’m not interested in “emphasizing” with people based on generic characteristics.”

You should empathize based on the fact that they are fellow human beings, and forget about their “generic characteristics” for a second.

right. exactly. there is no singular truth or answer. why would they have to be the same? why should their experiences need to be similar in order to be valid and worth listening to.

Jason, if I didn’t think they weren’t valid or worth listening to, would I bother to read them, let alone respond?

You seem to think that validity means agreement. I think Moi has a perfect right to say what she says and I think it is a (singular) point of view one can often here from black Americans in certain circumstances.

I just don’t happen to agree with her.

That’s called “treating someone like a human being”, Jason.

If I were to presume that everything that drops out of Moi’s mouth is a perfect pearl of wisdon because of her color or gender, or if I were to not say what I think because, y’know, she’s black and a woman, then I would not be treating her as an equal or as a full-fledged human being.

Simple as that.

who said you should presume such a thing? not me.

Three words you quite clearly said, Jason: “the white experience”. There is no possible way of looking at those words ehich doesn’t presume that personal experience is racially encoded along a singular axis. The (singular) white (racial and essential) experience.

You should empathize based on the fact that they are fellow human beings, and forget about their “generic characteristics” for a second.

Very nice. But then, i’m not the one lecturing other people on how I shopuld pay attention to “the white experience” or treat people differently because of there skin color, am I Jason?

“Very nice. But then, i’m not the one lecturing other people on how I should pay attention to “the white experience”

Are you referring to this?

“Everything you say on here is informed by your white perspective.”

It seems to me that whiteness tends to shield us from certain things, allows us to believe certain things. And in terms of race (and that’s an important distinction) see things a certain way. I would say that I notice a lot of similarities in the average white persons approach to race and I would include myself in there as well. This is just an observation of mine, backed up by accounts from countless POC. It’s not regurgitated political dogma.

Also Thad if you were really interested in proving moi wrong about WP You should stop being a walking, talking confirmation of her worldview. in fact your arguments do more to back her up than anything else. I hate the fact that I’m forced to agree with her much of the time. Your view of things would be much more flattering. Unfortuately a little thing called integrity gets in the way. Bummer that.

It seems to me that whiteness tends to shield us from certain things, allows us to believe certain things.

Yes, I know. And that statement presumes a cohesive and essential whiteness that impacts upon you and me in a singular fashion, regardless of the rest of our life experience. You do not like the term, but it is essentialist and reductionist. There is simply no other way to describe it.

I would say that I notice a lot of similarities in the average white persons approach to race and I would include myself in there as well. This is just an observation of mine, backed up by accounts from countless POC. It’s not regurgitated political dogma.

Unfortunately, in many cases it is. You don’t question whiteness itself, for example. You presume that whiteness isn’t and never has been impacted by racism, that all people with a certain skin color naturally are members of the “race”. That’s dogma, Jason. It’s dogma that’s so widely accepted in anti-racist circles that it seems like natural common sense to you.

Where did all that come from anyway? A quick google search tells me that Eugene Robinson did actually write it, and that my interpretation was correct.

Jason, Robinson is saying essentially the same thing I am, and yet you seem to think I’m denying racism whereas he’s “basically correct”.

Also Thad if you were really interested in proving moi wrong about WP…

Jason, I have no beef with Moi about white people, per se: my beef with her is about her essentialist and bilateral notion of race, whereby she feels she has some sort of instant and ineffable understanding of “people of color” the whole wide world over because, of course, both she and all these other folks have been victims of racism.

Moi screetches about me defending white people, but I very rarely do that because I don’t believe in “white people” and I think that people who do are and are willing to spend spit to defend them are ridiculous.

And Moi, for all her evident skill as a writer, is very much a one-note piano, which is probably the main source of my annoyance. She’s someone who feels entitled to piss on the world and everyone she talks to just because she’s so damned oppressed. She’s as arrogant as the day is long – read her comments policy if you think I’m bad. I don’t tell people who disagree with me to “f*** off”, but Ank Mie does. And the whole “Moi” bit is just too cute for words. I wonder if she has a Mini-Moi running around, biting her ankles as she ponders her next blog entry.

“she feels she has some sort of instant and ineffable understanding of “people of color” the whole wide world over because, of course, both she and all these other folks have been victims of racism. ”

right. you said that. about 500 times since I started posting here. talk about 1 note piano’s.

here’s the part your overlooking, when you say:
“she feels she has some sort of instant and ineffable understanding of “people of color”

what you should REALLY say is:
“she feels she has some sort of instant and ineffable understanding of how “people of color” are effected by racism.

but you don’t say that because that actually makes a bit of sense and you don’t want it to make sense, so you act like Ank is trying to do something impossible. like know everything there is to know about someone based on their race. I have seen no evidence of this.

1. white people all have pretty much the same approach to race.

2. therefor their actions and behaviors regarding race will tend to be of a similar nature.

right. you said that. about 500 times since I started posting here. talk about 1 note piano’s.

I wouldn’t have to say it if it didn’t keep coming up, over and over again, in Moi’s stuff.

“she feels she has some sort of instant and ineffable understanding of how “people of color” are effected by racism.

Whether or not she feels she has an understanding of those people or simply of how racism affected them is a purely semantical (and I thought you hated nit-picky semantics, Jase). The bottom line is that she thinks she knows another people’s history without actually having to, you know, do icky stuff like study it or learn their language.

Knowing the people or simply knowing how racism has affected them without actually KNOWING anything about the people is much the same thing, Jase. Your argument that one of these claims makes sense is a bit like saying trying to divide infinity by a million is orders of magnitude more rational than trying to divide infinity by a billion. Or like saying the Pacific Ocean is wetter than the Atlantic Ocean.

1. white people all have pretty much the same approach to race.

2. therefor their actions and behaviors regarding race will tend to be of a similar nature.

And this is simple, BS essentialist reductionism at its finest. It could only appear to be true to someone who actually hasn’t taken the time out to go through the history of whiteness and who presumes that their very limited and annecdotal life experience has put them in contact with everything they need to know about the subject. This is, of course, what Ank does, which is why she’s sitting on a mountain top somewhere, churning blogspace into a froth.

And, btw, Jase, you yourself probably know that your two presumed givens there are a load of BS, if you’d just stop to think about it. You realize that there are PLENTY of white people here in Latin America, right? Or are you one of those U.S. Americans who feels that everyone south of your country’s border is a member of a different race?

Given that you agree that there are white people in Latin America, how do you conflate that fact with the fact that Brazil has a completely different form of racism than the States, one which prioritizes assimilation and amalgamation rather than segregation? It’s sure enough racism, based on white supremacy, but it’s so different that black and white U.S. Americans who try to act here the ways they would in their homeland get quickly screwed up and turned around. Many Americans, of both colors, think Brazil is some sort of race free zone, simply because most Brazilians have never had a marked adversion to sharing substances with people of different complexions.

So how does this form of “whiteness” fit into your view that it’s all one big homogenous vanilla mass, the wide world over?

Actually, I have to agree with Thad here: American views of race are NOT universal. I repeat: they are NOT universal. They can only be applied to US context, but not outside US culture. It’s another form of American privilege (:D) to believe your cultural norms are universal. They are not.

So racism, like any other thing, is culturally specific. What is true in the US might not be true in another culture. Treating these issues using your cultural norms and understandings is a bad strategy, because the only thing you get that way is cultural misunderstanding.

For example, white people in my country (and my country is 100% white) don’t have most- if any- of proposed “white privilege” stuff that is often listed.” These lists tend to be heavy US-centered.

It can also mean people could disregard racism (or any other issue) if it doesn’t fit your (US) proposed criteria.

Believing it’s the same everywhere is not the best thing to go here. Ignoring cultural differences- and there ARE significant, crucial differences between various white cultures- is not a good thing because it doesn’t make people understand the problem.

I get that. But if you (general you) want to discuss racism* as an issue, you should specify you’re talking about US only.

*Or any other issue.

Because it’s different** on other places. I just hope everybody here is aware of that.

** “Different” doesn’t mean “better” or “non-existent”. It just means some “rules” that are true for American issues are not true for other cultures, and vice versa.

So yes, you might say, let’s stick to US only, or West only, or whatever, since that’s what the most commenters are interested in. Fair enough. I just hope people realize things they talk about are not universal, at least not in a way it’s sometimes presented.

Ah. So we’re talking about white Americans then, not white people. But isn’t Ank’s point that she knows all about this stuff, both in the U.S. and abroad, precisely because of the two things you bring up?

And furthermore, Jase, how much about white America do you really know? I get paid to study it and I learn something new every day. So wouldn’t it be fair to say that the operator “American” doesn’t change the general situation all that much? There are certainly white Americas that neither you nor I know anything about.

Mira says American values can only be applied in American contexts, but that just moves the problem down a notch. there IS NO one American context. Even the most hard-core black power militant was quite aware, for example, that racism worked differently in the south and the north, even though their children seem to want to gloss over this very well-known fact.

I suppose I am an essentialist because I think all people are essentially the same. If you cut someone, they will bleed.

Racism tends to interface with people in a particular way just like Vodka or the common cold. If I say that people who catch cold tend to sneeze a lot am I being an essentialist?

A cold is a biological fact which can be objectively measured. Race is not. When you presume that people have relatively homogenous values and act in relatively the same fashion based on race, you are being a racist in the strictest sense of the word.

For example, white people in my country (and my country is 100% white) don’t have most- if any- of proposed “white privilege” stuff that is often listed.”

I’d say that at least a good half of white Americans don’t have more than half of those “privileges” McIntosh presumes to be universal. She’s generalizing her particulars in a very irresponsible and amusing way. Basically, she’s a white middle class suburban anglo-saxon and simply PRESUMES that all white people in America live in essentially the same way that she herself does.

Not so. Unless you believe that how a POC deals with racism is his/her defining characteristic. Is that all there is to POC? there relationship to racism? who’s a reductionist now?

Let me see if I can explain this better…

How PoCs deal with racism is an incredibly wide and diverse topic. So wide and diverse that you could spend your whole life studying it and still come up with new things – and not just trivia, either: shockingly new things. We can thus presume, for all intents and purposes, that the field “how PoC deal with color” is effectively infinite.

So is really doesn’t matter if Moi decides that she inherently “knows” all she really needs to know about how PoC deal with racism based on her own experience or if she decides she knows all about PoC based on her own experience. In both cases, she’s claiming that she has an innate or simply experiential understanding of a hugely diverse field and in both cases, she’s simply incorrect.

Ah ok, so my belief that for example black Americans don’t like being called ni***rs by white Americans would be an unrealistic assumption to make, because I haven’t personally asked every Black American how they feel about it. Every POC would have such an “incredibly wide and diverse” reaction to this that there is truly no way to know.

No, but assuming “the N word issue” is universal when it comes to discussing race/racism is a bad generalization.

(Again, in my example, the word doesn’t exist in my country* and there’s no universal word to translate “the N word”. Does that automatically mean people in my culture are less racist?)

* The N word certainly made its appearance via media. But that’s another story.

I honestly don’t know what things apply to all cultures, and what things apply only to US or certain people/groups within the US. But checking every last item on the “white privilege list” (or any similar list) is not the point, or the fact you can’t check them most, if any of them. It doesn’t mean said issue doesn’t exist.

In this sense, I think, derailment tactic in a form of “I am poor, I don’t have white privilege” or “My ancestors didn’t own slaves” are bad not because all whites are the same and benefit from white privilege in the same way/amount- but because it is a harmful derailment tactic that is used to prevent anybody from even discussing privilege or understanding other people’s experience.

And then people wonder why POC often believe whites can’t understand them and their experience because they are not black. It’s not that they can’t… They simply don’t want to.

Ah ok, so my belief that for example black Americans don’t like being called ni***rs by white Americans would be an unrealistic assumption to make, because I haven’t personally asked every Black American how they feel about it. Every POC would have such an “incredibly wide and diverse” reaction to this that there is truly no way to know.

I’d say given the evidence which you probably have in your life for THAT group, it’s a fairly good hypothesis. Pretty well tested.

But that’s a completely different kettle of fish from saying you more-or-less instinctively know how racism impacts upon groups you’ve never even dealt with and cannot even communixcate with, whose history you’ve never studied.

And if you think every PoC would react the same way to the euphemistic “n word”, you’re nuts. Most PoC out in the world don’t even know what it means, in spite of rap and American cinema.

We don’t even have a translation for that term in Portuguese. There’s simply nothing like it in terms of offensiveness. Perhaps “macaco” and even then, it’s contextual.

@MiraIn this sense, I think, derailment tactic in a form of “I am poor, I don’t have white privilege” or “My ancestors didn’t own slaves” are bad not because all whites are the same and benefit from white privilege in the same way/amount- but because it is a harmful derailment tactic that is used to prevent anybody from even discussing privilege or understanding other people’s experience.

I was thinking about this privilege thing while biking today and I think I stumbled across one of the reasons it bothers me.

The reason is that it completely rejects the intersectional approach. It presumes that a set of identity-marker based privileges can be somehow isolated from the rest of a person’s being and analyzed like that, as a separate and wholey unique phenomenon which cleanly divides human beings into “victim” and “victimizer” classes. Such an analysis violates every single social scientific methodological law in the book in favor of giving a desired political response. Understanding, then, how people slot together in real life takes a back seat to a cheap, two-dimensional politicaol rhetoric.

I think a lot of people out there react negatively to this sort of “privilege” discourse (unless it benefits them) because they can instinctively feel in their lives, using common sense, that life doesn’t work that way.

My example of this would be a middle class professional intellectual white like Tim Wise lecturing a bunch of out-of-work white poor that they need to give up their race privilege. It’s rather an autistic view of social reality because it focuses exclusively on one single factor to the exclusion of all others and uses that factor to determine good and bad, right and wrong.

“And if you think every PoC would react the same way to the euphemistic “n word”, you’re nuts. Most PoC out in the world don’t even know what it means, in spite of rap and American cinema.”

yeah, I really don’t know anything about it. but, that kind of proves that talking about race in an american context and a universal context at the same time is kind of a waste. It’s like trying to discuss the effects of gravity on earth and someone insists on bringing up pluto.

me:
I suppose I am an essentialist because I think all people are essentially the same. If you cut someone, they will bleed.

Racism tends to interface with people in a particular way just like Vodka or the common cold. If I say that people who catch cold tend to sneeze a lot am I being an essentialist?

thad:
A cold is a biological fact which can be objectively measured. Race is not. When you presume that people have relatively homogenous values and act in relatively the same fashion based on race, you are being a racist in the strictest sense of the word.

me:
I don’t know, I have heard many POC talk about racism in ways that liken it to physical and emotional abuse. Emotional abuse is not a biological fact but it seems to affect people in a similar way. you wouldn’t bat an eyelash at members of a spousal abuse support group saying that they understand how other members of the group feel. Even if you take physical abuse out of it.

yeah, I really don’t know anything about it. but, that kind of proves that talking about race in an american context and a universal context at the same time is kind of a waste. It’s like trying to discuss the effects of gravity on earth and someone insists on bringing up pluto.

The point being that Ank claims she knows all the craters on Pluto.

I don’t know, I have heard many POC talk about racism in ways that liken it to physical and emotional abuse. Emotional abuse is not a biological fact but it seems to affect people in a similar way. you wouldn’t bat an eyelash at members of a spousal abuse support group saying that they understand how other members of the group feel. Even if you take physical abuse out of it.

Actually, I would bat an eyelash. Check out this situation: In a spouse abuse group, one woman is the wife of a billionaire who’s abuse consists of being told she’s a spendthrift idiot and having her credit cards put on a strict limit. The other is a poor woman who has her arm in a sling and a black eye, following repeated trips to the emergency room after Bubba bounced her off the trailer walls. No, I don’t think that their situations have very much in common, for all that they can legitimately be termed spousal abuse.

And no, I don’t think that, say, Condoleeza Rice is affected by racism in the same way as Kevin Jones, small time hustler and chronically unemployed resident of the Baltimore projects. It only works that way when you autistically narrow down every factor in their life to that of race and even then gloss a lot of very real and important factors as “no big difference, really”.

This is why essentialist reductionism makes for pi$$-poor social analysis and even worse political analysis.

“In a spouse abuse group, one woman is the wife of a billionaire who’s abuse consists of being told she’s a spendthrift idiot and having her credit cards put on a strict limit. The other is a poor woman who has her arm in a sling and a black eye, following repeated trips to the emergency room after Bubba bounced her off the trailer walls. No, I don’t think that their situations have very much in common, for all that they can legitimately be termed spousal abuse

It would be more realistic to compare a rich woman and a poor woman who both suffer verbal spousal abuse. Yes they have vastly different lives. Yes the abuse will take different forms. But when it comes to the emotional effects of spousal abuse they will be on very similar ground. Certainly they will have more in common when it comes to abuse than they would with wives in happy marriages who have never suffered abuse.

Also I haven’t read enough of Ankhesen’s writing to say much about what she believes.

It would be more realistic to compare a rich woman and a poor woman who both suffer verbal spousal abuse.

No, it wouldn’t, because spouse abuse is a lot of things and so is racism. Henry Gates, for example, was outraged when he encountered a form of police oppression that is par for the course for a lot of white, brown, red and black people. Obviously, there was a racial element in his arrest. Just as obviously, if I, a white university professor started cussing out a cop, there’s a non-trivial chance I’d get run into the cop-shop for disorderly conduct, too. I’ve seen it happen to American colleagues.

Racism affects Gate’s life the way spouse abuse affects the billionaire’s wife. It is definitely there, no doubt about it, but you’d have to be socially and politically autistic to think that this sort of experience all of sudden allows the victim to understand, intuitively, what the trailer park mama or the ghetto hustler go through.

But when it comes to the emotional effects of spousal abuse they will be on very similar ground.

No they won’t. PTSD is definitely an emotional effect. You don’t get that from insults and having your credit cards blocked. Traumatic a$$-whuppings have been known to cause it, however.

Furthermore, “emotional effects” are practically by definition subjective effects and cannot be ain any way shape or form measure and compared. But going on personal experience and common sense, I don’t think the billionaire’s wife is going to get much sympathy or sisterhood out of Bubba’s wife were she to say “Oh, I know exactly how you feel,” because dogma and political rhetoric of identity and victimnization politics aside, she hasn’t the slightest clue.

Abagond sums it up perfectly. He is dead on with all of his notes but one he got wrong. Crack is the drug of choice for black people now. It used to heroin when jazz was going on but it’s changed to crack now. Good article and very fact filled and informative. This is a really good look at black society and culture in America.

When Jason says “I’m talking about America only…racial politics in other countries are of little interest to me,” he’s summing up the underlying assumptions of almost everybody who comes to this kind of discussion.

That’s what Peggy McIntosh was trying to say when she wrote about what she called privilege: it’s the assumption that your group is the norm, the default. It’s also the lack of interest in seeing things from any other point of view.

I think privilege is the wrong term. I’d call it insularity and complacency. People will spend endless hours debating racism, and steadfastly refuse to consider racism in the outside world. Not relevant. Not interesting. The US IS the world.

Even commenters such as Ankhesen Mié, not from the US, assume the same, very simplistic, underlying attitude. (Not all of them, obviously. I read this blog for the comments by Mira and Thaddeus, because it’s so unusual — and refreshing — to see a US discussion of racism with the perspective of people who acknowledge the existence of the majority of the world)

The US has so much power and influence over the rest of the world, filling up TV stations and cinemas all over the world with its news content, films, books and sitcoms. British office workers are given diversity training, with Indians being told they are white and therefore racist. Vietnamese students tell me Iraquis brought down the twin towers. A white Frenchman tells me earnestly that “America is our leader, whether we like it or not”.

Meanwhile, an Algerian in France tells me of his failure to convince a US American that he is African. Apparently he is not black enough.

Now I shall go back the the “American privilege” thread and go on about the relationship between privilege and
complacency and ignorance.

That’s what Peggy McIntosh was trying to say when she wrote about what she called privilege: it’s the assumption that your group is the norm, the default. It’s also the lack of interest in seeing things from any other point of view.

If that’s what Peggy was on about, there’s a perfectly good term in social science used to describe that sort of thing that’s not racism nor privilege: ethnocentrism.

People confuse those three concepts all the time.

You’re very right about complacency and ignorance, though: that is DEFINITELY what ethnocentrism is based on. And I also think that you are right in that Peggy didn’t really think the concept of “privilege” through very well.

Except for the 6% population figure, most of these statments are generally true.
At least when it comes to rates of sexual activity, crime, violence, employment, ect…
These stereotypes are a form of rudimentary, but necessary understanding of black america.
I think its good to know.

Religion: Baptist. They go to church more but lack moral values.
holidays: Kwanzaa, Martin Luther King Day

I know a lot of black ppl who are atheist, Muslim, or another denomination besides baptist. I have never met a black person who celebrates Kwanzaa. The first time i heard about it I was 14 and it Susie was celebrating on rugrats lol.

politics: Democrats. Voted for Obama just because he is black (even though he is half white).

I think its funny when people think black people voted for Obama because he is black… when most black people have generally voted democrat on ever other election when the person wasen’t even black. Mabye they were voting for him because his polictics is what they agree with.

Population: forty percent of the USA and zero per cent of the rest of America (Canada is all white and the rest of America all mestizos who will be played by Spaniards on the rare occasions that they have speaking parts)

Religion: Gospel!

Leaders: Martin Luther King, Malcom X and Mohammed Ali

Class structure:
* 25% rich (drug dealers, musicians/actors/rappers and sports stars)
*15 percent police or in office jobs so they can be well-groomed and supportive of white people in sitcoms
* 25% in semi-poverty, working as golf caddies, street sweepers, soldiers
*35% hanging around near rappers and drug dealers

Language: Same accent as U.S. whites. Becomes musical and ungrammatical in the case of drug dealers or women with dark skin. (Gets more complicated with the dubbed-over TV in non-English-speaking countries)

Women are thin, with café-au-lait skin and wavy hair. Sometimes (not often) they are darker or fatter. If so, they will inevitably have the musical way of speaking mentioned above, and they will be overbearing and irascible for comic effect and call everybody “honey”.

Miscegenation must be illegal, because black people only have romantic relationships with other black people.

Only lighter-skinned women get to have romantic relationships.

The only ordinary, working black people in the US are police. They always work with white policemen to amuse them, or to teach them things about life. There are some yuppies, but most are drug dealers, musicians or prostitutes.

Food: Same as anyone else.

I don’t know how seriously TV viewers take these stereotypes, but we get a fairly steady stream of them in the UK, France, Spain and Australia.

I consider anybody who views one ethnic group in certain way to be ignorant point-blank. Most of those ugly stereotypes are perpetuated by the media. What is sadder to me is that some ignorant black folks cling to these stereotypes with pride.

If I had son who acted like those clowns on tv I’d slap him across face and say to him your grandfather would be ashamed of you. He is no fool he is a hard working man of integrity.
Your actions would make your grandmother weep. No son of mine is gonna embarrass me.

i lived in Brasil for 2 years when i was a kid-and i have to say that i certainly felt some racism there. but yeah, it wasn’t the same as here (US)-it seemed more obviously class-divided, if that makes sense. now, i was 7years to 9years so i probably wasn’t terribly racially sophisticated, but i did live in Arkansas in the years bracketing the Brasil years-definitely racist, of course. moreover-this WAS 35 years ago, so the racial relations might be different now. but my experience of Brasil definitely was NOT that there was no racism.

There’s also a lot of White people according to Black people going on in this blog. It’s hilarious to see the bashing of Whites from people who are so obviously deluded. Not to mention the self-hating Whites who try to one up them in a bid for acceptance as a “down” white boy or girl.

There’s also a lot of White people according to Black people going on in this blog.

Try Stormfront or chimp.com for blacks according to whites. This blogs pales in comparison to those ‘gems’. I have a question for you; Why do you care?

It’s hilarious to see the bashing of Whites from people who are so obviously deluded.

No dear. It’s hilarious reading the responses from you and your ilk. It almost beats a comedy club outing(no food and beverages served here).

Not to mention the self-hating Whites who try to one up them in a bid for acceptance as a “down” white boy or girl.

Now who is deluded here? This is a blog. What are the chances of anyone of us meeting in real life? Hence why would these white people try to be ‘down’ as you put it? They don’t know any of the other posters for the most part! Who are they trying to impress? Better yet, who are you trying to impress, or not impress? For someone who apparently disdains blacks and feels superior, you are a conundrum. If you are so superior why do you even bother responding to the ‘lesser’ species, their concerns, views etc. You are not that superior you see, else you wouldn’t give a fiddlers f*rt as to what a bunch of dumb kneegows and self-loathing whites, think or feel. Superior people just don’t give a sh*t,, they just don’t.

This is the most ignorant thing i have ever read. black people aren’t at the bottom, we do have morals and values. DO NOT put our Christianity into this. All the people who commented saying this is right are definitely wrong! YOU ARE IGNORANT AND RACIST. What if a black person wrote about what we thought of white people? Our jobs are better than most of white people. We don’t care about Obama being half black, he had the qualities we were looking for in a president and he had them. This is very disrespectful and you are a waste of space. Your mother should have raised you better. I’m black and i love my culture. Most of white people try to act, “black” anyways. Wearing their pants sagging low, wearing, “du-rags” when YOUR HAIR ISNT LIKE OURS, trying to hang out with us. We’ve come along way and i don’t appreciate the things you have written down. You said poverty was our fault… WHITE PEOPLE LIVE IN TRAILERS WITH RATS AND ROACHES EVERYWHERE so what do you mean? You really need a life and black people are the best in this nation 🙂 Good day sir .

I see there are tons of responses to this silly posting, and I don’t know if this has been asked or not, but if what the original post says about black people is true, why do so many white women seem to like us black men? And um, how come so many white guys seem to be diggin on our sistas?

You don’t have to be white to agree with the list. Most if not a clear majority of so called minorities hold the same beliefs about black people. Blacks are truly at the bottom of the america social ladder. Most non blacks hates or strongly dislikes blacks only having to tolerate them because they happening to be part of this society.

^ Speak for yourself. I have been blessed to have black people in my life/family and one special woman, in particular, is a second mom to me since my mom died. How would you know the majority of non-blacks don’t care for black people. Have you talked to them all? Maybe some do, but the ones I know don’t.

I honestly don’t care what other non-blacks think. It’s their truth not mine. They’ve been brainwashed to believe all sorts of ridiculous notions or rather garbage about black people. I won’t have any of it.

I know of some Filipinas who only want to marry white men, but let’s be frank, it’s not only Filipinas. Generally, Asian (American) women are more likely to date/marry out out of all the races, but the reality is most Asian-American women marry Asian-American men.

Anyway, I have always felt I have more of a common ground with black people being a Filipina. Be honest. I know what other “real” Asians have said about my people.

Okay, so then what if non-blacks were FINALLY made aware? That they realize they’re being used to play against blacks, they still have a choice, don’t they? Sorry, my early experiences with racist white people and from what my family taught me as a child showed black people were not the problem.

I chose not to read through all of these threads because of the hate and ignorance. Everyone isn’t awake so let me add my input to some of these crazy topics! Just because someone has a bad experience with someone different than them, doesn’t mean that everyone is that way. White people have their problems too, let’s be clear, lets be very clear lol. This post was done for drama in which I do not have much time for, however IGNORANCE IS A BLISS AND KARMA IS A B*TCH, and she’s about to become a bigger one. Thank you. Stay woke lol